Goldacre takes ABPI to task over book snub

Comments 4

1. John Ansell 12 Oct

   Extracts from Goldacre's new book appeared in a lengthy Guardian article recently. I checked this through and there was nothing new. It was all re-heated material that had previously appeared in his weekly Guardian columns - mostly far from recently.
   
   Obviously Goldacre needed something to follow up his highly successful "Bad Science". I have a lot of time for his material in that book.
   
   That Goldacre could find nothing new on pharma is telling. No doubt it hurts when someone spots that there is nothing novel in what you are putting out.

2. bengoldacre 12 Oct

   I don't think I'm angry. I'm sad, really, that the ABPI have been unable to engage constructively with substantive concerns about ongoing problems that need to be fixed. 
   
   Roche continue to withhold information on Tamiflu from Cochrane.
   
   Clinicaltrials.gov has not worked: only one in five trials have met their reporting requirements. 
   
   If the Guardian chose earlier stories that you don't like for their extract, then that's beyond my control. 
   
   I think criticising someone's book, as the commenter above does, and their comments about it, without ever reading either, tells a clear story about how this industry has failed over the years to fix the serious problems that put patients lives at risk.
   
   I strongly encourage you to engage with the business of health a little more thoughtfully. 
   
   Ben Goldacre
   www.badscience.net
   
   *Note from moderator - links are now in the story

3. Umberto Eco 15 Oct

   Dear Ben, it's very nice that you commented here. I worked at a US pharma company in CTs and now I evaluate clinical overviews, I agree wholeheartedly, lie and deformation of truth are at the core of the system (and not only this one). Your efforts are very much appreciated, but to get some perspective: is forcing pharma to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, which will be rather difficult - as for any industry, really a higher priority than stopping the tobacco industry from selling the product to millions that kills one out of two long-term users? Those lies are much more deadly and even less historical - the first LC -tobacco link is from 1912,  it's not getting better with any real urge. Which one is a higher health priority to you?

4. Salisbury Rich 01 Nov

   Having worked in the UK NHS most of my life in a clinical and managerial role I can attest to the fact that marketing by drug reps has become an accepted part of the scenery. Only when the arrogance of many medical staff and the apathy of managers has been turned round will clinicians be free of these iniquitous parasites. The revelation that reps gain access to prescribing histories - and possibly personal details of patients is outrageous. I speak as a member of the public who has the right to privacy.
   @ umberto eco, people who smoke know, or can easily find out, what effect tobacco has but the prescribing of expensive and dubiously efficient drugs controlled by the operation of dark arts is beyond the pale.

Post a comment